Tuesday

“The steady erosion of the American trial is our dirty little secret.”

A majority of the American public might be surprised to learn that there is indisputable statistical evidence that the number of jury and non-jury trials in our country is, and has been, sharply declining, both in absolute and relative terms.1 For example, in 2010, only 2,154 jury trials were commenced in federal district courts, which means, on average, Article III judges tried fewer than four civil jury trials that year. While jury trials in federal court obviously have declined, the decline in bench trials has been steadier and steeper.2 Even though the number of lawyers continues to increase, the number of trials is still decreasing3.

Nor is the decline in the number of cases tried due to a reduction in case filings. To the contrary, both civil case filings and dispositions actually have increased five-fold in the federal courts during the same time that the number of trials—both the rate of trials as well as the absolute number—has diminished substantially4.

Historically, Texas state courts have had a similar experience. For instance, from 1986 to 2008, civil jury trials in Texas state courts fell by 60 percent.5 Remarkably, this past year, only 0.4 percent of civil cases were resolved by a jury or a directed verdict in Texas courts, an amount lower than the national average.6

What do these trends portend for the future? They mean that, despite its historical importance and value, we are slowly but surely losing one of our most precious institutions—a trial by jury or even any trial at all. James Madison, the drafter of the Seventh Amendment, would be puzzled by how we allowed this to happen, given his view that “[t]rial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”7

The Importance of the Jury

It is difficult to argue against the value of a jury. Typically, a jury’s decision reflects community values in the resolution of issues, “such as whether a party’s actions were reasonable, whether a product’s social utility exceeds its risk, … whether a breach of contract should be excused, or whether a police officer’s use of force was excessive.”8Moreover, the shared decision-making responsibility and freedom from individual repercussions permit jurors to make difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions that would be politically perilous for other governmental participants, particularly elected judges.

“The jury trial, with all of its faults, is democracy and self-governance in action.”

Jurors bring many qualities that make them truly representative of the conscience of the community to the decision-making process: gender, ethnic, political, and philosophical diversity; a fresh perspective; collective wisdom; and a breadth of attitudes and experiences. Jurors try to do the right thing—namely, follow the court’s instructions and the evidence, and reach the correct result.

The jury trial, with all of its faults, is democracy and self-governance in action. Beyond the act of voting, jury service may be the only opportunity most citizens have to participate in any aspect of government. In a democratic society, this matters.

Finally, the jury system also provides an important forum for parties who have little or no access to private dispute resolution. Without an accessible dispute resolution system, individuals, especially poor and minority litigants, may find themselves with no practical avenue to enforce rights or redress grievances.

The Consequences of the Decline

“[T]he right to a jury trial confers important societal and individual benefits, and it is a right that should be relinquished only knowingly and voluntarily—not gradually and quietly.”

Fifth Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham described the decline of trials as one of the most significant changes in the American judicial system since the nation’s founding. He views the disappearance of trials as “a change in [the] very architecture” of our judicial system, a system for resolving disputes that, he notes, has largely remained constant for more than 200 years.9 Similarly, Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Nathan Hecht explains, “It’s a detriment if we lose the development of the common law through cases and appeals that have been the [basis of the] rule of law in this country since its founding.”10

To be sure, some commentators have suggested that the diminution in the number of jury trials is a positive development, or even a sign of a welcome evolution to a kinder, gentler system of dispute resolution.11 Consequently, today summary judgment frequently becomes “the destination point for litigation.”12 Yet, in my view, the right to a jury trial confers important societal and individual benefits, and it is a right that should be relinquished only knowingly and voluntarily—not gradually and quietly. It is, after all, a right explicitly recognized no fewer than three times in our Constitution, one of our nation’s most sacred documents.

What Does the Future Hold?

We can look to the civil justice systems of other countries to see where we are heading if we continue on our current path. The civil jury trial is all but extinct outside the United States; they have little use for our adversarial system. Instead, those systems use legislated civil codes in place of the judicially developed common law and an inquisitorial process in place of an adversarial one.

It would be easy to dismiss the phenomenon of the vanishing trial as simply the self-interested lamentations of trial lawyers looking to preserve their way of life. But that begs the fundamental question: do we want a judicial system of the type to which we are inexorably being pushed?

“Most important, we need the public to participate in our justice system, yet we are moving in the opposite direction.”

According to professor Marc Galanter of the University of Wisconsin Law School, the decline in trials has become institutionalized:

The decline is accompanied by an ideology that explains and promotes it to judges, administrators, lawyers, clients, and policy-makers. Some of the expressions of this ideology are: that the role of judges is to manage and resolve disputes; that adjudication is only one—and not always the optimal—way to do that; that trials are expensive and wasteful; that ordinarily disputes are preferably resolved by mutual concessions; that settlement benefits parties and the courts themselves; that outsourcing disputes to ADR institutions benefits courts without detriment to parties; and so forth.13

One thing is clear—our judicial system is being reshaped. If we have fewer trials, for example, we may need fewer trial judges and courtrooms. If we have fewer trials, we will have fewer appeals, and, therefore, we may need fewer appellate judges. Furthermore, fewer appeals mean less development of the common law and that, in turn, means diminished outcome predictability available to assist lawyers in advising clients.

Most important, we need the public to participate in our justice system, yet we are moving in the opposite direction. Juries in Texas civil district courts rendered 1,642 verdicts in 2005.14 Since then, this number has decreased by nearly 30 percent; in 2012, only 1,197 civil jury verdicts were rendered.15 Moreover, the voir dire examination of jury panels in civil cases in Texas has dropped as well. Between the 2004-2005 and the 2008-2009 time periods, the number of jury panels examined fell by more than 20 percent.16Consequently, with the decrease in the number of jury trials in civil cases, we are excluding from the judicial process the very people we need—the public—to support a strong and independent judiciary, one of the fundamental underpinnings of our democracy. According to Paul D. Carrington, professor of law at Duke University, “The [jury] system has served many purposes, but its enduring purpose has been to secure a greater measure of trust in judicial institutions.”17

Judge Higginbotham strongly criticizes the direction in which we are heading: “Trials reduce disputes, and it is a profound mistake to view a trial as a failure of the system. A well-conducted trial is its crowning achievement.”18

Even lawyer and client access to judges in federal court appears to be declining. The current state of federal courts has been described as follows by Carrington and Roger C. Cramton, the Robert S. Stevens Emeritus Professor of Law at Cornell Law School:

In lieu of trials, the district judges and their staffs tend to practice “managerial judging,” a process by which they seek, by diverse methods, to facilitate settlements and avoid the necessity of making decisions that might burden a court of appeals with the need to review their judgments. Or, if a decision on the merits must be made, to render it in the form of a summary judgment, ruling one party’s proposed evidence to be legally insufficient and hence unworthy of being heard, a procedure that spares the trial judge the need to see and hear witnesses, but still enables him or her to expound the controlling law.19

The experience of most Texas lawyers in state court is markedly different from that in federal court. For example, it is much easier to obtain access to a judge in state court. Indeed, hearings before state court judges are routine. On the other hand, in federal court, cases are regularly resolved on the papers, with few, if any, hearings before the court. In federal court, “[a] recurring complaint is that lawyers often have little or no direct contact with the judges in charge of their cases.”20 That trend is also likely to continue.

“If we continue on the current path, our judicial branch will look far different 25 years from how it does today—and we may not like what we see.”

Conclusion

What, if anything, can be done to reverse this trend? At the very least, the public must be made aware that it is slowly but surely losing a precious right that our Founding Fathers fought to embrace and preserve—the right to a jury trial or any trial at all. This necessarily involves a massive educational effort. Hopefully, once the public becomes aware of the steady erosion of this precious right, there will be a clamor for the current situation to be reversed. Only a major impact from outside the system is likely to alter the current trend. If we continue on the current path, our judicial branch will look far different 25 years from how it does today—and we may not like what we see.

David J. Beck is a founding partner of Beck Redden. Consistently recognized as one of the country’s best trial lawyers, Beck has previously served as president of the State Bar of Texas and as president of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He presently serves as chair of the Center for American and International Law.

Professor Marc Galanter, who has extensively researched this area, makes this point in “A World Without Trials?” Journal of Dispute Resolution, Volume 2006, No. 1, at 1. See also, id. at 4 (observing that decrease in jury trials from 1976 to 2002 in courts of general jurisdiction of sample in 22 states “was similar in jury trials (from 3.4 percent to 1.3 percent) and bench trials (from 5.0 percent to 2.0 percent)”).

See U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Outlook Handbook 2010-2011 Edition: Lawyers 3-4 (2010) available at http://bls.gov/ oco/pdf/ocos053.pdf (noting that while the number of active attorneys is growing, alternatives to litigation—and attorneys—are increasing).

Galanter, supra, note 1, at 7-8. See also, Galanter and Frozena, supra, note 2 at 26. In Harris County, for example, there are nearly 1,900 new suits filed per year for each civil district court, almost twice the number of filings in 2000. Hon. Randy Wilson, “Civil Litigation Trends in One of the Nation’s Largest Counties,” The Houston Lawyer, at 11 (July/August 2013).

This is for the fiscal year ending Aug. 31, 2012. Compare Office of Court Administration, District Courts Activity Detail from Sept. 1, 2011, to Aug. 31, 2012, available at http://www.txcourts.gov/pubs/AR2012/dc/3-ActivityDetail.pdf. See also, Galanter and Frozena, supra, note 2 at 3 (“Jury trials also reached a new low in 2010 relative to total dispositions, at 0.73%.”).

Mark W. Bennett, Judges’ Views on Vanishing Civil Trials, 88 Judicature 306, 307 (2005). To be sure, there are multiple reasons for the decline in jury trials. See generally, American College of Trial Lawyers, The “Vanishing Trial”: The College, The Profession, The Civil Justice System, (Oct. 2004) available at http://www.actl.com.

This includes both directed verdicts and final judgments that were rendered following a verdict. Office of Court Administration, District Court Summary of Jury Activity from Sept. 1, 2004, to Aug. 31, 2005, 3 (2005) [hereinafter 2005 Jury Activity], available at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2005/dc/10_District_Summary_of_Jury_Activity_FY_2005.pdf.

SHARE YOUR STORY

We always encourage all parents and extended family to share experiences of Family Court horrors, or Parental Alienation and its impact on you, your children and family. That way the ripple effect of the information and experiences shared will create positive change for other people who are affected or who may be affected in the future.

Comment anonymously, call yourself whatever you want. Email addresses are strictly confidential, and providing one is optional (but will allow you to be notified of others’ responses and to dialogue immediately if you wish). This blog was viewed over a half a million times. For the public to be aware of procedural abuses, it has to hear about them. The blog author’s own story is here. Civility is the only constraint upon your speech.

3d DCA Watch -- Bye Bye Bunker Edition!
-
So one time in bunker camp the Resplendently Robed Ones™ decided to pretty
much chuck the month of December and go explore the beautiful environs of *Centra...

Stop Court-Ordered Parental Alienation

February 23rd

Obnoxious ‘Renegade’ Justice ~ Family Courts

The abuses of parents and children by Family Courts, social workers, and family law attorneys have harmed parents and children for far too long. We intend to end that abuse

Family court is designed by its makers to be probably the most dangerous life event parents and children can endure. It enables and profits from every inhumane instinct known to man—greed, hate, resentment, fear—resulting in abundant cash flow for the divorce industry and a fallout of parent and children’s misery.

And behind the curtain of this machine of misery we’ve uncovered its cause—the multi-billion dollar divorce industry, populated by judges, attorneys, and a machinery of tax-dollar fed “judicial administrators,” social workers that George Orwell would marvel at.

We’ve been delivering that message kindly for years now, yet the tide keeps rising on families in crisis. We’ve appealed to the county courts, state and local politicians, state judicial oversight bodies, United States Representatives, and just plain old human dignity, but the harassment and abuse of parents and children has only increased. A resort to federal court intervention in the widespread criminal collusion in state government was the next logical step.

It’s time to recognize Family Court for what it is—a corporate crime ring raiding parents and children of financial and psychological well-being, and devouring our children’s futures. And its not just divorce lawyers—its judges, “judicial administrators,” psychologists, cops and prosecutors—people we should be able to trust—in a modern day criminal cabal using county courtrooms and sheriff’s deputies as the machinery of organized crime.

Since state officials’ hands are too deep into the cookie jar to stop their own abuse, we’re seeking the assistance of federal oversight.

The present-day suffering of so many parents and children has and is being wrought within a larger system characterized by a widespread institutional failure of—indeed contempt for—the rule of law.

Family courts, the legal community, professional institutions such as the state bar, psychology boards, and criminal justice institutions have in the recent decade gradually combined to cultivate a joint enterprise forum in which widespread “family practice” exceptions to the rule of law are not only tolerated, but increasingly encouraged. Professional behavior that would only a few years ago be recognized as unethical, illegal, or otherwise intolerable by American legal, psychological, law enforcement, or social work professionals has increasingly achieved acceptance—indeed applause—from institutional interests which benefit from a joint enterprise enforcing the unwritten law of “who you know is more important than what you know.

In this lawless behavior’s most crass infestation, Family Court Judges are regularly heard to announce, in open court, “I am the law” and proceed to act accordingly with impunity, indifference, and without shame.

The effect on parents and children seeking social support within this coalescing “family law” forum has not been as advertised by courts and professionals—a new healing—but instead a new affliction: an ‘imposed disability’ of de rigueur deprivation of fundamental rights in the name of ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ funded by converting college funds into a bloated ministry of the Bar Associations leaving families and their children with mere crumbs of their own success.

Many family court judges regularly administer such obnoxious ‘renegade’ justice every day, in open defiance of the rule of law. ‘Sober as a judge’ these days has a whole new meaning.

We need reform toward a more humane family dispute resolution solution

Many of our members are mothers, fathers, and children who have withstood abundant hardship resulting from the current practices of what is generally described as the “Family Law Community.”

These injuries and insults include fraudulent, inefficient, harmful, and even dangerous services; an institutionalized culture of indifference to “clearly-established” liberties; insults to the autonomy and dignity of parents and children; extortion, robbery, abuse, and more, delivered at the hands of eager operators within the divorce industry. ~~ CPRW Vid1 - 2016

World4Justice2016

It’s just not possible that intelligent lawyers like judges don’t understand exactly what goes on in their courtrooms, yet they allow it to continue.

This judicial collusion is far more serious crime than even the fraud of divorce attorneys themselves.

We need reform toward a more humane family dispute resolution solution. They’ve treated us as enemies of the state. When we thought we’d be welcomed, or at least heard, we’ve instead become targets of prosecution and terrorist threats. They've assaulted us, harassed our members including threatening “gun cock” and death threat late night phone calls, attacked our businesses, professional licenses, and threatened to jail and extort us with further crime.

It’s outrageous that our own government allows this to happen, and we’re asking the federal court to protect our members as we pursue the civil and criminal charges against the courts. A complete set of filings and exhibits is available from CCFC’s Facebook page at www.Facebook.com/ccfconline ~~ Grandparents and Grandkids World4Justice2016 ~ GR Vid2 -- www.facebook.com/Grandparents4Justice

Jury trials have been unlawfully eliminated as an option in family court by unelected adminstrators, leaving judges to do whatever they want and control the cases completely. The checks and balances of the judicial system have been removed and profit motives win by the gravity of money over decades.

Freedom of speech in the United States

“Will of the people the only legitimate foundation of any government, protect its free expression, our first object.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

"No man is good enough to govern another man without the other's consent."

“There are subtle ways and overt ways of alienating a child from a parent, but either way it’s evil”

Almost always, the creative dedicated minority has made the world better.

Never succumb to the temptation of bitterness.

Stand up for Zoraya

Stand Up For Zoraya

Internet Defense League

Collaborative Family Law

google-site-verification: googlebeb56b04a455e344.html

Strengthening Father-Child Relationships

Posting Rules

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

By using various interactive features to post content, you are participating in a community intended for all of our users. In general, we reserve the right to remove any content posted on our site at any time for any reason. Without limiting our right to remove content, we have attempted to provide guidelines to those posting on our site. As such, if your behavior becomes a problem for the site or for other users, we may, in our discretion and without warning, ban you. Posting Rules When using this blog, please do not post material that:

§Contains vulgar, profane, abusive, racist or hateful language or expressions, epithets or slurs, text, photographs or illustrations in poor taste, or attacks of a personal, racial or religious nature.

§Discriminates on the grounds of race, religion, national origin, gender, age, marital status, sexual orientation or disability, or refers to such matters in any manner prohibited by law.

§Violates or inappropriately encourages the violation of any municipal, state, federal or international law, rule, regulation or ordinance.

§Interferes with any third party's uninterrupted use of this blog.

§Advertises, promotes or offers to trade any goods or services, except in areas specifically designated for such purpose.

§Includes copyrighted or other proprietary material of any kind without the express permission of the owner of that material.

§Uses or attempts to use another's identity, account, password, service or system except as expressly permitted by the Terms of Service of Google's Blogger.

§Contains or links to viruses or other harmful, disruptive or destructive files.

§disrupts, interferes with, or otherwise harms or violates the security of StAugustine.com, or any services, system resources, accounts, passwords, servers or networks connected to or accessible through StAugustine.com or affiliated or linked sites.

§"flames" any individual or entity (e.g., sends repeated messages related to another user and/or makes derogatory or offensive comments about another individual)